Appeal No. 2002-0003
Application No. 09/056,794
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed May 21, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed Feb. 26, 2001) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention whereas the examiner has not shown that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the reactive ion etching
(RIE) of Suwanai for patterning, rather than “flattening” as recited in claim 12, with
chemical mechanical polishing as maintained by the examiner. The examiner admits
that Suwanai does not teach the use of flattening by chemical mechanical polishing.
(See answer at page 3.) The examiner maintains that RIE and chemical mechanical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007